Mid east

[scout 0]

as i said again, i cant refer to specific incidents until i have info about them but it was always strange 4 me that they are starting to film from one point.

as one that was on the recieveing line (from the journalists) i must say that they are the most arrogant SOB's that ive ever met in my life. and they actually film what they want. i was in an incident where an egyptian journalist started to throw rocks and attacked one of my soldiers with a steel rod.

the next day, im seeing in the news only the picture of us carrying him away.

i dont say that they are all acting like that but i say that there are many who do it.

BTW. the granade uve shown there is CS and its a picture from an attempted break in, into Arafat's place. this picture is quite famous here!

i also say, that in many incidents i was in, the difference between what was going on and what was reported is pretty big!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Scout, you are realy going too far! This is not an ordinary journalist for a scum-paper, this is a employee of Reuters. No, it is quite unlikely that this guy is lying and it is quite unlikely that he was only touched by smoke-grenades. And the paper where this was published was 'Der Spiegel' which too is a considerable good magazine in Germany!

I dont see you ever being self-critical. Of course there are incidents where the army is reacting with the necessary power (after decades of war, they know what they are doing) but there are also little events where there is simply no excuse. THOSE soldiers in the Jeep should be sent back and at least sit in a trial. At least they would have to justify themselves. (now if you read this and you tell yourself: what the hell, sending soldiers back into trial for such a tiny stupid ecounter with a journalist, then you should sense how far you distanced yourself from the ordinary democratic world"!

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do u mean the settlement Tel-Aviv? or Hadera too?

were these settlements u relate to were built on ground that was taken recently? and if they arent being moved, and no one takes their place, it takes some of the sting of youor claim, leaving u with some hollow propaganda stuff<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean what is your land and what is theirs? That's simple enough to answer. See here:

Some maps.

The land that is yours legally is shown under the headline '1947 United Nations Partition Plan' or even under headline '1948-1949 War'. West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights are occupied by you, taken in a war which you began with an offensive (they were threatening you I know, but it was you who escalated to full hostilities with your pre-emptive attack). Placing settlers in occupied areas means that you intend to get the land for yourselves permanently. Now I know that everybody thinks that Six Day War was fought to secure the existence of Israel. But could an additional motive have been the confiscation of some more land for Israel? More lebensraum? If this was the case, I'm sure Israel would never admit it.

Once again, I refer to the occupation of Germany after WWII. What would have happened if the occupying powers started putting settlements on german soil? French settlers in Berlin bulldozing german buildings and buildings theirs instead? Ze germans would have been seriously pissed.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 17 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do u mean the settlement Tel-Aviv? or Hadera too?

were these settlements u relate to were built on ground that was taken recently? and if they arent being moved, and no one takes their place, it takes some of the sting of youor claim, leaving u with some hollow propaganda stuff<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean what is your land and what is theirs? That's simple enough to answer. See here:

Some maps.

The land that is yours legally is shown under the headline '1947 United Nations Partition Plan' or even under headline '1948-1949 War'. West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights are occupied by you, taken in a war which you began with an offensive (they were threatening you I know, but it was you who escalated to full hostilities with your pre-emptive attack). Placing settlers in occupied areas means that you intend to get the land for yourselves permanently. Now I know that everybody thinks that Six Day War was fought to secure the existence of Israel. But could an additional motive have been the confiscation of some more land for Israel? More lebensraum? If this was the case, I'm sure Israel would never admit it.

Once again, I refer to the occupation of Germany after WWII. What would have happened if the occupying powers started putting settlements on german soil? French settlers in Berlin bulldozing german buildings and buildings theirs instead? Ze germans would have been seriously pissed.<span id='postcolor'>

You will laugh but the French did exactly that with through the occupation of the Rheinland after WWI (nothing against the french, they are my favourite neighbours, besides of course the swiss). What they did was to claim all the produced resources (such as cole and iron) and month by month imported nearly everytime 100% back to France.

This tense occupation is considered as one of the reason why this Hitler could rise in power. The effect is similar to that of the Isreal and palestine. The Germans (poor fucks in this period of time) tried to rebell but couldnt cause they had no money to finance it. So they just lowered production so the french wouldnt get much of their resources...la la la after a few years Hitler cam and He and His propaganda played with the people living in this surpression, and he promised them independance... (easy as that to get people to support you)

[scout 0]

albert:

u show one side of it, i show u the other. and i said: until u know the facts u cant be sure! the are many provocations going on around, and i think i present more even attiutde. u just cant know until u have everything.

here is a small story about reuters:

after our two guys were lynched in Ramallah u would see that reuters refused to release videos they had because of threats the palestinians made to the reporters ! a camera crew of a news agency went to the archives in Tel-Aviv and asked for them, they were denied.

[scout 0]

i was trying to fiind the site but i didnt manage to find it Oligo. any way, the archives from the six day war have been opened and they show clearly that israel waited that the US wil try to settle the crisis diplomaticly before openning hostilities. it would be the same as if Finnland wouold be blocated on the sea. no one can enter or leave.

BTW a little known fact is that the former USSR flamed the syrians and egyptians into action.

israel took action only after the US had declared that i cant solve this problem.

the operation was intended solely against Egypt, but both Jordan and syria joined in (Jordan tried to seize part of western jerusalem and bombarded israeli cities, while Syria bombarded Kibbutzes in the Gallilee.)

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 17 2002,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 17 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do u mean the settlement Tel-Aviv? or Hadera too?

were these settlements u relate to were built on ground that was taken recently? and if they arent being moved, and no one takes their place, it takes some of the sting of youor claim, leaving u with some hollow propaganda stuff<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean what is your land and what is theirs? That's simple enough to answer. See here:

Some maps.

The land that is yours legally is shown under the headline '1947 United Nations Partition Plan' or even under headline '1948-1949 War'. West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights are occupied by you, taken in a war which you began with an offensive (they were threatening you I know, but it was you who escalated to full hostilities with your pre-emptive attack). Placing settlers in occupied areas means that you intend to get the land for yourselves permanently. Now I know that everybody thinks that Six Day War was fought to secure the existence of Israel. But could an additional motive have been the confiscation of some more land for Israel? More lebensraum? If this was the case, I'm sure Israel would never admit it.

Once again, I refer to the occupation of Germany after WWII. What would have happened if the occupying powers started putting settlements on german soil? French settlers in Berlin bulldozing german buildings and buildings theirs instead? Ze germans would have been seriously pissed.<span id='postcolor'>

You will laugh but the French did exactly that with through the occupation of the Rheinland after WWI (nothing against the french, they are my favourite neighbours, besides of course the swiss). What they did was to claim all the produced resources (such as cole and iron) and month by month imported nearly everytime 100% back to France.

This tense occupation is considered as one of the reason why this Hitler could rise in power. The effect is similar to that of the Isreal and palestine. The Germans (poor fucks in this period of time) tried to rebell but couldnt cause they had no money to finance it. So they just lowered production so the french wouldnt get much of their resources...la la la after a few years Hitler cam and He and His propaganda played with the people living in this surpression, and he promised them independance... (easy as that to get people to support you)

<span id='postcolor'>

the germans had their revenge in 1940 ...... lol

[scout 0]

Oligo! here is a site concerning the Six Day war. u can say its biased but there are many facts u can always check in the US congress archives and UN archives.

shalem

edit: in the end of the document there is a large list of bibliography u cann check to make sure we're not altering anything

[Oligo 1]

Yeah well the point of my post was really not to place blame on the Six Day War on anybody, but I can see why somebody might think so. The point was that if you occupy some territory even in a justified war (like the allies did in the end of WWII), placing settlements on the occupied land is bound to raise some heat like Albert so nicely pointed out happened after WWI. Even if you win a war, you have to be gracious and not humiliate the enemy too much. As long as you stay in West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights colonizing land, people are going to think that you are criminally occupying land belonging to other people. Give those places up and the opinion will swing to your favour. You don't need that land for survival of your nation, since you can pretty much kick all the surrounding arab countries ten times over.

The maps are not very important (although the link works for me), but they basically show the land you had before 6 day war. This land (actually a little less) was agreed to be yours in the U.N. resolution, which you should stick to for legitimacys sake.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oligo! here is a site concerning the Six Day war. u can say its biased but there are many facts u can always check in the US congress archives and UN archives.

shalem<span id='postcolor'>

I have read about the 6 day war from the IDF website, so I don't think it was pro-arab biased? And I agree the arabs were asking for it. Anyway, humiliating people is not very wise in the long run.

[scout 0]

as ive said 10 posts ago or so

i dont mind give back most of the west bank and the gaza strip, because i basicly think that either u make em citizens or give em to rule themselves. but an offer of this kind WAS offered in Sep. 2000 and was rejected by Arafat. what do u want us to do? to force him to accept it? why dont YOU force him to accept it. in its essnce its the same offer the Saudis made.

and to add a twist: im ready to give back ALL the territories to Egypt and Jordan, mind u, they are the countries we took this land from.

isnt it strange that they werent enthusiastic to do it?

here comes another question: if the Arab world cares so much for the palestinians why didnt they make a country right after '48?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont mind give back most of the west bank and the gaza strip, because i basicly think that either u make em citizens or give em to rule themselves<span id='postcolor'>

I think that it is very good that you think so, but I doubt that Sharon agrees with you. Or some less moderate people, like Lady Avon.

[scout 0]

denoir: as i see it the problem is not in our hands any more.

u need two for a dance, and for 8 years we were alone on the dance floor. IF the PA suddenly change its way most of israelis will support the diplomatic process just as they did in 93'. but there got to be a change in the policy of the PA. and that doesnt seem to come soon!

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont mind give back most of the west bank and the gaza strip, because i basicly think that either u make em citizens or give em to rule themselves. but an offer of this kind WAS offered in Sep. 2000 and was rejected by Arafat. what do u want us to do? to force him to accept it? why dont YOU force him to accept it. in its essnce its the same offer the Saudis made.

and to add a twist: im ready to give back ALL the territories to Egypt and Jordan, mind u, they are the countries we took this land from.

isnt it strange that they werent enthusiastic to do it?

here comes another question: if the Arab world cares so much for the palestinians why didnt they make a country right after '48?<span id='postcolor'>

I'll tell you what to do, it's simple. Arafat has no say in the matter, if you decide to give back the land: Basically you just pull back all your troops and citizens (you know the settlers) from the occupied territories. Then you put your troops to guard the border airtightly and require visas from anybody coming from outside U.S. and other countries you like. Getting a visa can be as hard as you decide and requiring a visa is a perfectly legit thing to do. You make an international declaration that you give up the control and resposibility of West bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights and that you don't really care what the arabs do with them. Let them decide. You wash your hands of the mess and mop up the few terrorists remaining inside Israel proper. Brilliant!

If you pull off this stunt, I for one am going to vote you to be one of the best countries in the world.

I would actually want to use this same tactic in Finland as well. We have this small archipelago thing called Ahvenanmaa. The citizens of this archipelago are all swedish speaking and their soul is in Sweden, to put it lightly. They have a limited autonomy, they don't have to serve in the army (we still have to defend them), they hate all finns who cannot even own land there and the tax flow is from the mainland to Ahvenanmaa (we pay their shit). Since they have all the benefits and no drawbacks, they are more than happy with the Status Quo.

So what I would like to do is force an independence (or whatever, let them join Sweden) upon them. We just pull out all our officials and set up a border between the mainland and Ahvenanmaa. Then we just call the local officials and say: 'By the way, you're now independent, we recognize it, have fun. can we set up an embassy?' I'd love to see their faces after that.

[scout 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 17 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll tell you what to do, it's simple.    Arafat has no say in the matter, if you decide to give back the land: Basically you just pull back all your troops and citizens (you know the settlers) from the occupied territories. Then you put your troops to guard the border airtightly and require visas from anybody coming from outside U.S. and other countries you like. Getting a visa can be as hard as you decide and requiring a visa is a perfectly legit thing to do. You make an international declaration that you give up the control and resposibility of West bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights and that you don't really care what the arabs do with them. Let them decide. You wash your hands of the mess and mop up the few terrorists remaining inside Israel proper. Brilliant!<span id='postcolor'>

thats one of the options that are being considered seriously by the govt. and the army, although you have to keep in mind that evacing close to 200000 is tricky to say the least. the talk in about evacing 90% of the territory.

did i say Arafat objects this move fiercly?

in the matter of the Golan heights thats another story altogether!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I would actually want to use this same tactic in Finland as well. We have this small archipelago thing called Ahvenanmaa. The citizens of this archipelago are all swedish speaking and their soul is in Sweden, to put it lightly. They have a limited autonomy, they don't have to serve in the army (we still have to defend them), they hate all finns who cannot even own land there and the tax flow is from the mainland to Ahvenanmaa (we pay their shit). Since they have all the benefits and no drawbacks, they are more than happy with the Status Quo.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, YES! Let Ĺland join Sweden!

[Guest]

I think that oligo's suggestion is a reasonable one. Pull out of the palestinian areas and let them deal with the problems... I guess the problem is the Jewish settlements there...

[scout 0]

the problem is that an orderly evac is hard at best, but u can be sure that the palestinians will make sure itll be as bloody as they can.

and again, the problem isnt the settlers its the palestinians themselves.

anyway, we started to build a fence as a first order. this process will take time and money. it cant be done over night.

i think in the end, if no UN forces will be sent here, that this will be the solution. its being discuss for some time now.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,18:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the problem is that an orderly evac is hard at best, but u can be sure that the palestinians will make sure itll be as bloody as they can.<span id='postcolor'>

Why would they oppose an Israeli pullout?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and again, the problem isnt the settlers its the palestinians themselves.

<span id='postcolor'>

What do you do with the settlers then? 'Population transfer'?

[scout 0]

one of the sides has to move out! its either us or the pals.

the idea is to concetrate most of them to blocks.

the pals wont agree to have settlers in their territory and i wont leave em to the mercy of the PA.

the palestinians just want us to pull out all the way back to europe and the US. thats all. it seems you are all thinking in too western terms ppl.

if no one understood it, the idea is to kick us outa here, if not why didnt they accept Baraks proposal? he gave em literally all they wanted!

and another question: when they'll start shelling us across the border, who will take care of them? the UN? just like they are doion now in Lebanon?

thats what give this plan a low prioroty for now.

edit: im thinking faster then i type!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yes, me too! But for me that doesnt mean anything because I think realy slow, now just imagine how slow I must be in typing.

HEY, everyone, once we kick the 100 pages I will print it out, send it to a publisher and sell it all over the world: It will be called "Modern confronational thoughts on the Middle East!"

or     " Middle East, the hard issue on the net"

or     " Learning to know all perspectives of the Middle East issue"

Any proposals

I WILL BE RICH AND BUY THIS FORUM!! AND I WILL PAY YOU FOR POSTING MORE AND MORE AND THEN I CAN PUBLSIH MORE BOOKS AND THEN I WILL MARY MICHElLE HUNZIKER (well the last part probably wont come true)  

[scout 0]

hey we all want a piece of the riches!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey we all want a piece of the riches! <span id='postcolor'>

you can buy shares, that is all you can do to profit from the incredible uprise of the 'Albert Schweitzer Literature Corporation'

[Longinius 1]

We should get a percentage related to how many of the posts we contributed. That way, me and scout would get rich!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if no one understood it, the idea is to kick us outa here, if not why didnt they accept Baraks proposal? he gave em literally<span id='postcolor'>

That is not how I understood it. Are you not sure that it isn't just the Israeli perception of it? AFIK Arafat has never (at least not in recent years) said anything about kicking the Jews out of Israel.